M4/3 is Awesome!

frst16 wrote:

Even with all the noise around FF, and that’s all it is, is noise, I for one have no intention of switching over. ..

I had been shooting Nikon DSLRs for about 15 years (D3100, D90, D300, D700) and love macro and motorsport. ..

Personally I think M4/3 is a great place to be right now!

I also found the quality of Olympus 'budget' prime lenses to be on par with Leica's non-APO lenses, and Olympus Pro prime lenses to be every bit as good (if not better) than the top of the line Leica lenses. But they cost a mere fraction of the price. This is not an exaggeration.

The 3D look and feel in the images, subtle feathering of the DoF to Oof, subject separation, sufficient sharpness (excessive sharpness kills the image and flattens the perspective) and above normal micro-contrast, the richness of colours thanks to less light information lost (achieved with thinner lens elements made from better grade optical glass) is what truly surprised me.

I would not trade my relatively simple M4/3 setup for anything. My M4/3 camera and an f1.8 prime lens on it, weigh same as recently announced f1.8 lens for the FF mirrorless Nikon Z alone!

I have the portability, versatility, creativity, and .. fewer visits to the physiotherapist.

Awesome because it is cheap? Have you made one to one comparison between the other systems or is it only the focal length for cheap that maters?

Sergey_Green wrote:

Awesome because it is cheap? Have you made one to one comparison between the other systems or is it only the focal length for cheap that maters?

I have answered that question; the quality of cameras and lenses is outstanding. And it happened to be cheaper in some respects to other systems. If the price matches, then other things outweigh in favour of M4/3 (size, portability, smarter design).

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Awesome because it is cheap? Have you made one to one comparison between the other systems or is it only the focal length for cheap that maters?

I have answered that question; the quality of cameras and lenses is outstanding. And it happened to be cheaper in some respects to other systems. If the price matches, then other things outweigh in favour of M4/3 (size, portability, smarter design).

Ok, size, portability and price then, anything? How do you measure the quality of the cameras and the lenses, is it that nothing has broken down yet? Not to poke you, just curious.

Okapi001 wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Awesome because it is cheap? Have you made one to one comparison between the other systems or is it only the focal length for cheap that maters?

And here we go again. One of those who simply cannot stand the fact somebody is happy with the m4/3, thinking its an awesome system. It seems it's their mission in life to post pointless comments in each and every such tread.

Please, go and start trolling in some other forum.

Did I catch you already ? Was quick, was not it ?

Okapi001 wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Awesome because it is cheap? Have you made one to one comparison between the other systems or is it only the focal length for cheap that maters?

And here we go again. One of those who simply cannot stand the fact somebody is happy with the m4/3, thinking its an awesome system. It seems it's their mission in life to post pointless comments in each and every such tread.

Please, go and start trolling in some other forum.

I was just waiting for the first negative post. Sergey won the prize.

I do not get these guys like Sergy, Bustard and Forgottenbutnotgone  who do not own m43 and are not interested in M43 following this forum so intensley, just to police and post negative comments.

Its a strange world.

NCV wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Awesome because it is cheap? Have you made one to one comparison between the other systems or is it only the focal length for cheap that maters?

And here we go again. One of those who simply cannot stand the fact somebody is happy with the m4/3, thinking its an awesome system. It seems it's their mission in life to post pointless comments in each and every such tread.

Please, go and start trolling in some other forum.

I was just waiting for the first negative post. Sergey won the prize.

What negative did that post say?

I do not get these guys like Sergy, Bustard and Forgottenbutnotgone who do not own m43 and are not interested in M43 following this forum so intensley, just to police and post negative comments.

Can speak for myself, I visit other forums just as well. Are you policing where I post?

Its a strange world.

I am not judging.

Sergey_Green wrote:

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Awesome because it is cheap? Have you made one to one comparison between the other systems or is it only the focal length for cheap that maters?

I have answered that question; the quality of cameras and lenses is outstanding. And it happened to be cheaper in some respects to other systems. If the price matches, then other things outweigh in favour of M4/3 (size, portability, smarter design).

Ok, size, portability and price then, anything? How do you measure the quality of the cameras and the lenses, is it that nothing has broken down yet? Not to poke you, just curious.

I use Leica and Olympus. The optical quality of Olympus lenses seamlessly matches the kind of optical quality I get from Leica, and in some instances even more so.

The colour output too matches well and the black and white output from both systems is what I am after because critical micro contrast performance is often seen in black and white conversions.

Handling of both cameras is excellent too though so give advantage to Olympus for incredible AF speed and easier access to some parameters (WB, ISO) with a flick of a switch.

The size of cameras is excellent too, not too big, and finely balanced against mostly used smaller lenses.

Battery life in both cases is very good too, cameras are energy efficient. Both are very silent too.

Regarding metering Olympus is better by a mile, and very consistent; I can fully depend on it even in tough situations. But for any supercritical work I suggest use of dedicated light meter that has more options and greater precision than any camera will ever have (1/10 of a stop or better).

There are more details, nerdy obsession with how lenses model the 3D look and how delicately background recedes into understatement but still keeps its dignity (and not forced blur or utter dismission with  poorer optical designs). Etc.

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Awesome because it is cheap? Have you made one to one comparison between the other systems or is it only the focal length for cheap that maters?

I have answered that question; the quality of cameras and lenses is outstanding. And it happened to be cheaper in some respects to other systems. If the price matches, then other things outweigh in favour of M4/3 (size, portability, smarter design).

Ok, size, portability and price then, anything? How do you measure the quality of the cameras and the lenses, is it that nothing has broken down yet? Not to poke you, just curious.

I use Leica and Olympus. The optical quality of Olympus lenses seamlessly matches the kind of optical quality I get from Leica, and in some instances even more so.

The colour output too matches well and the black and white output from both systems is what I am after because critical micro contrast performance is often seen in black and white conversions.

Handling of both cameras is excellent too though so give advantage to Olympus for incredible AF speed and easier access to some parameters (WB, ISO) with a flick of a switch.

The size of cameras is excellent too, not too big, and finely balanced against mostly used smaller lenses.

Battery life in both cases is very good too, cameras are energy efficient. Both are very silent too.

Regarding metering Olympus is better by a mile, and very consistent; I can fully depend on it even in tough situations. But for any supercritical work I suggest use of dedicated light meter that has more options and greater precision than any camera will ever have (1/10 of a stop or better).

There are more details, nerdy obsession with how lenses model the 3D look and how delicately background recedes into understatement but still keeps its dignity (and not forced blur or utter dismission with poorer optical designs). Etc.

Very good post, thank you.

May I ask you which Leica you use? I know nothing about their cameras.

NCV wrote:

I do not get these guys like Sergy, Bustard and Forgottenbutnotgone who do not own m43 and are not interested in M43 following this forum so intensley, just to police and post negative comments.

It doesn't matter what someone owns, if they go anyways being so negative about it where they are and so often.

Sergey_Green wrote:

Very good post, thank you.

May I ask you which Leica you use? I know nothing about their cameras.

Many. DLux, X2, X113, T, Q, etc. I think M optics is very good, but I don't like the slowness of the Leica M camera. Because today's world is about 6x faster than 60 years ago, of the time of Henri Cartier Bresson. At one stage I thought to get a Leica TL camera with two lenses, because i really loved he colour output, and because I liked the size, but I figured out Olympus Pen is even better because it has tilting screen and is faster and lenses are as good as, and I don't need to crawl in the mud to get low angle shots.

Leicas are very old-style, that is, mostly slow to use; only the X2 can be used in a relatively quick manner, and with one hand. It is very light too, which helps with my back and shoulder pain, so I kept it.

Tilting screen with Olympus cameras is a feature made for today's fast paced world and great versatility of use, good in environments which are cautious against cameras posing prominently, or honky cameras pointed right at people.

So the equipment should be minimal, but the output should be maximal, flexibility and versatility too.

In day to day use, I think of terms of influences, learning, and specific visual language. To me, crucial influence came from the books about photography; Robert Frank's 'The Americans' helped me a lot, and spent quite some time with it.

Then books and photographs by Steve McCurry and other authors. I read National Geographic magazines since I was a kid, always analysing images. So although I love cameras, I am even more interested in philosophical, storytelling and aesthetic aspect of the images. Once technical issue is solved, and I think it is, to me provided by Olympus philosophy, what's left is — hard work.

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Very good post, thank you.

May I ask you which Leica you use? I know nothing about their cameras.

Many. DLux, X2, X113, T, Q, etc. I think M optics is very good, but I don't like the slowness of the Leica M camera. Because today's world is about 6x faster than 60 years ago, of the time of Henri Cartier Bresson. At one stage I thought to get a Leica TL camera with two lenses, because i really loved he colour output, and because I liked the size, but I figured out Olympus Pen is even better because it has tilting screen and is faster and lenses are as good as, and I don't need to crawl in the mud to get low angle shots.

Leicas are very old-style, that is, mostly slow to use; only the X2 can be used in a relatively quick manner, and with one hand. It is very light too, which helps with my back and shoulder pain, so I kept it.

Tilting screen with Olympus cameras is a feature made for today's fast paced world and great versatility of use, good in environments which are cautious against cameras posing prominently, or honky cameras pointed right at people.

So the equipment should be minimal, but the output should be maximal, flexibility and versatility too.

In day to day use, I think of terms of influences, learning, and specific visual language. To me, crucial influence came from the books about photography; Robert Frank's 'The Americans' helped me a lot, and spent quite some time with it.

Then books and photographs by Steve McCurry and other authors. I read National Geographic magazines since I was a kid, always analysing images. So although I love cameras, I am even more interested in philosophical, storytelling and aesthetic aspect of the images. Once technical issue is solved, and I think it is, to me provided by Olympus philosophy, what's left is — hard work.

I had X2 some years ago, and I thought it was a very nice camera (not only pretty to look at). It was not an action camera, sure, but could be a good friend to anyone who like random shots. It could hold the shadows and the colors quite well I thought. Had the very good lens on it.

So you say mFT is better? It is different generation now, so hardly comparable.

I think he said it is great / awesome, I up the ante and say it is not only better, but the BEST (also for me personally). Shoot me! (Preferably with a camera of any kind.)

Competition and choices in cameras are great to have, I have found my sweet spot in all respects, not only price.

Sergey_Green wrote:

e, and I thought it was a very nice camera (not only pretty to look at). It was not an action camera, sure, but could be a good friend to anyone who like random shots. It could hold the shadows and the colors quite well I thought. Had the very good lens on it.

So you say mFT is better? It is different generation now, so hardly comparable.
- sergey

It is comparable in terms of output but more versatile and much faster.

btw I think you are lifting up shadows way too much.

Another issue, did you look at 'The Americans' by Robert Frank? Technical quality of those grainy b&w photographs is abysmal from today's standpoint and in galleries they are never printed larger than A3 with a large border inside. But those images changed the course within photography world and influenced thousands.

So that is important. With any M4/3 camera you can make a book and an exhibition that way surpasses results from Robert Frank's old film Leica and Steve McCurry's Nikon film camera.

If Oly could do an EM10 with PDAF and keep the price the same, that would make m43 even harder to look past. That sort of body with a 14-150 and a fast standard (ish) prime would be a great place to start for anyone.

NCV wrote:

I do not get these guys like Sergy, Bustard and Forgottenbutnotgone who do not own m43 and are not interested in M43 following this forum so intensley, just to police and post negative comments.

Well, I happen to like mFT a lot. Can you link to even one post where I have posted something negative about mFT?

Its a strange world.

It's a strange world where I can post things like the following, where I conclude:

But, once again, I'd like to reiterate that you will likely be better served by the mirrorless mFT and APS-C options than the 6D2 (even though I own, and very much like, the 6D2).

If, out of all the options I had to recommend one, I think I'd recommend a used Olympus EM5II + 12-40 / 2.8 (equivalent to a 24-70 / 5.6 IS on a 6D2, which is very close to your original idea, but much smaller and lighter). You should be able to find the combo (used) for around $1000 (USD). If you don't need weather sealing, then consider the PEN-F instead of the EM5II, but that will make the combo come in at $1250 (used) vs $1000.

not for lack of many, many, many other such posts (I can link and quote more, if you like), and still be accused by people as being negative about mFT. Do you have any links and quotes showing me disparaging mFT? No? Well, no matter -- it's not as if the facts have ever mattered to many around these parts.  After all, misrepresenting what I say is something of a sport around here, so...